CHAPTER XIV.

THE CLERGY AND THE FORMULARY

 

The Assembly of the French clergy, judging it needful to take measures for enforcing submission to the Papal bulls against Jansenism, adopted that of a Formulary, to be signed by all ecclesiastics and religious houses. Such a proceeding was one of questionable wisdom, and could only be justified by the extreme urgency of existing circumstances. It was defended on the ground of the necessity of withstanding the insubordination of the recusant party, and as a safeguard against schism in the National Church, which there seemed too much reason to apprehend. Its effects, however, as we shall see, were to prolong and exasperate the already passionate strife of parties.

The task of drawing up the Formulary was entrusted by the synod of 1656 to Pierre de Marca, Archbishop of Toulouse, the distinguished author of the treatise De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii. That prelate prepared a draft accordingly, which was approved by the Assembly; and information of the proposed step was immediately despatched to Rome. Alexander VII replied by the bull Ad sacram, dated October 16th, 1656, which confirmed those of his predecessor, and denounced as “disturbers of public peace and children of iniquity ” those who pretended that the Five Propositions were not to be found in Jansenius. Alexander declared, moreover, that the Propositions were condemned in the sense of Jansenius;—“in sensu ab eodem Cornelio intento.” This bull was not received by the French synod till the 17th of March, 1657; when it was resolved to modify the form of subscription, so as to include the latest communication from the Holy See.*

The following were the terms finally agreed upon:—“I, the undersigned, do submit sincerely to the constitution of Pope Innocent X, of the 31st May, 1653, according to its true signification, which has been determined by the constitution of our Holy Father Pope Alexander VII, of the 16th of October, 1656. I acknowledge myself bound in conscience to obey these constitutions, and I condemn with heart and mouth the doctrine of the Five Propositions of Cornelius Jansenius, contained in his book entitled Augustinus, which has been condemned by the two Popes and by the bishops; the said doctrine being not that of St. Augustine, but a misinterpretation of it by Jansenius, contrary to the meaning of that great doctor.”

At the request of the Assembly a Royal message was sent to the Parliament, directing them to register the bull Ad sacram, and announcing at the same time that all ecclesiastics would be expected to subscribe the Formulary within the space of a month. Corresponding instructions were forwarded to the provincial Parliaments; and the tribunals were forbidden to entertain any appeal comme d’abus which might be presented on this subject. Lastly, a circular letter from the Assembly to the members of the French episcopate exhorted them to enforce conformity with these regulations in their several dioceses.

The bull of Pope Alexander was accordingly published throughout France, and the prescribed notice given with regard to the subscription of the Formulary. But the bishops universally abstained from insisting on a literal application of the test. The vicars-general of the diocese of Paris, who, as already noticed, were partisans of the Jansenists, openly im­pugned the Formulary as containing falsehoods and absurdities; and re-echoed the hackneyed arguments by which their friends had so long striven to evade the plain meaning of the Papal decrees. The Government did not interpose to press com­pliance; and the result was that the Formulary remained a dead letter for upwards of three years.

The publication of the bull Ad sacram added seriously to the difficulties of the Jansenist position. Hitherto it had been pleaded that the Five Propositions did not express the sentiments of Jansenius; that his teaching was none other than that of St. Augustine, which the Pope himself had declared to be untouched by the decision; and that, in consequence, the doctrine of Jansenius had not been condemned at all. But this ground could no longer be maintained; it was now distinctly ruled that the Propositions were condemned in the very sense in which Jansenius held and published them. Hence, if it should be made compulsory to sign a Formulary embodying this statement, the only choice open to the Jansenists would lie between rejecting the authoritative judgment of the Apostolic see, and subscribing what they believed in their con­sciences to be untrue. Antoine Arnauld, perplexed by this dilemma, gave vent to his feelings in a pamphlet which he entitled ‘Cas proposÉ par un docteur, touchant la signature de la Constitution d’Alexandre VII, et du Formulaire du Clergé.’ It was addressed to Nicolas Pavilion, Bishop of A let, whom the writer professed to consult for the removal of his scruples; but it would seem that in reality his mind was already made up as to the course to be pursued.

The following questions were propounded for solution:—First, whether a divine hitherto firmly convinced that the Propositions are not in Jansenius, and are not condemned in the sense of that writer, is bound to change his opinions in consequence of the Papal bull and the deliberations of the clergy of France? Secondly, whether the same divine, still retaining his persuasion that Jansenius has taught no other doctrine than that of St. Augustine, can nevertheless subscribe the Formulary? Lastly, whether it is allowable, considering all the circumstances, to preserve a respectful silence, with regard to the bull, under the impression that the Pope may have been misinformed as to the matter of fact involved in the charge against Jansenius ?

Replying to his own inquiries, Aenauld decided the two former points in the negative, the latter in the affirmative. The Bishop of Alet, however, took the opposite view of the case; and expressed himself of opinion, to the great surprise of the Jansenists, that the individual in question not only might subscribe the Formulary, but ought to do so, notwith­standing his conviction of the orthodoxy of Jansenius; since the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff must override all private sentiments, and although a clear distinction existed between matters of fact and articles of faith, in the case of Jansenius the two questions were so closely interwoven, that it would not be wise or safe to separate them.

Arnauld rejected this unpalatable advice, and pursued the discussion. In a second letter to the Bishop he urged that the submission due to the Holy See must be limited by the claims of reason, which God has manifestly given for our direction in all important enquiries. He was convinced, by irresistible evidence, that the Pope had acted under a misapprehension of facts in the condemnation of Jansenius. How then could he be expected to accept, contrary to the dictates of his own reason, a conclusion which he knew to be founded upon erroneous premises? Upon a question of simple fact the Pope had no right to claim infallibility; inasmuch then as the judgment in this case was not infallible, it was sufficient to submit to it in silence, retaining at the same time his own conscientious conviction, which indeed it was impossible to alter.

The Bishop of Alet, a man of remarkable honesty and im­partiality of mind, was much impressed by these considerations. He resolved to devote himself to a still deeper investigation of the questions at issue; and this scrutiny resulted in an import­ant change of sentiment as to the objections raised by Arnauld, and in general as. to the relative position of the contending parties. Prom that time forward Pavilion was one of the most energetic and unfaltering defenders of the Jansenist cause.

Yet the ground thus taken by the Jansenists, if examined dis­passionately, must be pronounced evasive and fallacious. The Pope, on their hypothesis, was infallible in matters of faith, but fallible in questions of fact; and whether Jansenius had broached a certain doctrine in a particular work, they main­tained to be purely a question of fact.

But this theory may be taxed with inconsistency. H the supreme Pontiff be infallible in defining dogma, he must be able to declare with equal certainty that such and such dogmas are laid down in a given volume; for this may happen to be the very hinge upon which an entire controversy turns; and in the case of the Five Propositions it was actually so.

If the Pope, though doctrinally incapable of error, may at the same time misapprehend the sense of the writings upon which his decision is sought, it is difficult to perceive in what his infallibility consists. How can he decide questions of dogma, unless he can also interpret works which treat of dogma? To pretend that the interpretation of such works is a question of fact as opposed to one of doctrine, is a mere abuse of language. These are not ordinary facts, but facts which are involved of necessity in controversies of faith; and with respect to such facts, it is plain that either the Pope must be able to pronounce unerringly, or that he is not infallible at all. No one, of course, pretended that the Pope can judge of any private ideas or purposes which a man may secretly cherish in his own mind. An author may possibly 'believe the very contrary to that which he has expressed in words; but the Church is concerned only with the natural legitimate sense of his published language; and, on Roman principles, it must be competent to the Pope, acting as the organ of the Church, to determine whether certain opinions have actually been broached, and whether they are or are not in accordance with the Rule of Faith. If every one whom Rome condemns could excuse himself by alleging that the Pope has misunderstood him, and that in point of fact he never entertained such sentiments, it would follow that the judicial functions of the Papal Chair must in course of time be altogether superseded. Heresy might be perpetually condemned, and heretics might nevertheless persist in propagating the self-same errors, on the pretext that their real opinions were totally distinct from those specified in the censure.

Whether it be true that the Pope, as an individual, possesses the power of deciding in the name of the Church, without the assistance and consent of a General Council, is another question, which, however momentous, does not enter into the case before us; since, as before observed, the Jansenists professed to acknow­ledge the Papal infallibility in judgments de fide. Thus they occupied a false position; and as the controversy proceeded, it became more and more evident that their system tended logically to the denial of a doctrine which in words they affected to maintain, the infallibility of the Holy See.

This, however, makes it none the less a matter of regret that the French clergy should have taken so ill-judged a course in framing and enforcing the Formulary. Such a policy under such circumstances could have but one, and that a calamitous, issue. The Jesuits, to whose counsels it was chiefly due, had abundant reason to lament in the sequel a measure of which the ultimate reaction fell with disastrous weight upon themselves.

The appearance of a circular letter from Cardinal de Retz, who from his retreat at Rome intrigued incessantly for the purpose of obtaining favourable terms of accommodation, incensed the Government afresh against the Jansenists in the course of the year 1660. The offending document was attributed to Arnauld; and if not actually penned by him, there is no doubt that in substance it was inspired by Port Royal. Hence Mazarin made it a pretext for insisting on the execution of the harsh enactments against the recusant party. On the meeting of the Assembly in December, 1660, the three presiding prelates were summoned to the Louvre, where the young king informed them that, for the advancement of the glory of God, the repose of his subjects, and his own salvation, he was resolved to extirpate Jansenism from his dominions; and enjoined them to concert with their brethren the means which they might deem most effectual for the accomplishment of this pious purpose. In compliance with this expression of the royal will, the Assembly passed a vote on the 1st of February, 1661, by which the signature of the Formulary was made absolutely obligatory upon the whole clergy secular and regular, upon members of religious Orders, nuns as well as monks, and even upon directors of colleges and schools.

On the 13th of April this resolution was confirmed by an arret of the Council of State; and Louis added a circular letter to the bishops, exhorting them to carry into immediate execution the measures prescribed by the Assembly. A letter to the same effect was sent to the Sorbonne, and was obeyed without hesitation; the Faculty ordered that the Formulary should be subscribed by all doctors and bachelors of theology, and by all candidates for degrees.

Cardinal Mazarin did not live to see the result of these unwise proceedings. After a tenure of supreme power which had lasted, with very brief intervals, for eighteen years, he expired on the 9th of March, 1661; leaving behind him a repu­tation which ill became his exalted station in the Church. As he had always shown himself decidedly hostile to the Jansenists,  they imagined at first that his death might turn to their advantage; but a very short time sufficed to dispel this illusion. They had an enemy in the highest quarter.

The circumstances of his education, and the traditions of the administration of Richelieu, had inspired Louis XIV with a strong antipathy to Jansenism, which he had learned to regard in the light of an organized opposition to his authority. Accord­ingly, it became plain, from the moment when he took the government into his own hands, that if there was one principle of policy upon which he was more determined than another, it was the complete humiliation and extinction of this disaffected party in the Church. One of his first acts was to appoint a “council of conscience,” as it was called, to which he entrusted the chief management of ecclesiastical affairs, including the presentation to vacant bishoprics and benefices. The persons who composed this board were Pierre de Marca, Archbishop of Toulouse; Hardouin de Perefixe, then Bishop of Rodez and afterwards Archbishop of Paris; and Father Annat, the king’s Jesuit confessor. The selection of such names was a tolerably clear intimation to the friends of Port Royal of the treatment they might expect for the future.

It was not to be expected that the Formulary would be acquiesced in by the Jansenists without a desperate resistance. Loud complaints were made in various quarters against the Assembly, for having exceeded the bounds of its authority in framing a new confession of faith, and dictating to the bishops in the administration of their dioceses. Under pretence of upholding the discipline of the Church, such a proceeding, it was urged, subverted its most fundamental principles. Others declared that the signature of the Formulary would involve an act of positive heresy; since, in condemning Jansenius, it condemned by implication St. Augustine, and thus opened the door to all the errors of Pelagianism. The Vicars-general of the diocese of Paris, though not venturing openly to contravene the orders of the Sovereign, published an ordonnance for the signature which differed considerably from the form drawn up by the Assembly. They alleged that the only question discussed at Rome was whether the Five Propositions were in themselves orthodox, or the contrary; and hence they concluded that, with regard to the “fact of Jansenius,” nothing more was requisite than a respectful acceptance of the Papal constitutions. This was virtually to recognize the validity of the Jansenist distinction between the fait and the droit; and was therefore a mere evasion of the meaning of the Formulary. The Assembly of the Clergy denounced this document to the king, and his Majesty, having caused it to be examined by certain prelates, declared it null and void, as contrary to the decisions of the Holy See, and ordered it to be revoked. The parochial clergy of Paris, on the other hand, published an official statement testi­fying that, so far from causing offence, the mandement had been received with feelings of gratitude and edification by themselves and the faithful to whom they ministered.

The Vicars-general appealed to Rome; and Alexander responded on the 1st of August by a brief rebuking them strongly for having advanced a manifest falsehood, in saying that the question of the authorship of Jansenius had not been examined or decided at Rome. The Pope commanded them to revoke their mandement as soon as they received his brief, under pain of the heaviest censures. After some hesitation, they obeyed; and issued on the 31st of October a second ordonnance, in terms precisely conformable to the resolution of the Assembly ; requiring the signature of the Formulary “pure et simple,” without any attempt to distinguish between the droit and the fait.

The Court, instigated by the Jesuits, now commenced a relentless persecution of the two convents of Port Royal. In April, 1661, an armed force, headed by the lieutenant-civil, expelled from both houses the pensioners, novices, and postulants, and ordered that none should be admitted for the future. A lettre de cachet was signed, banishing Singlin, the director, to Quimper in Brittany; but timely notice having been forwarded to him, he escaped before it could be executed. A new Superior and confessor was imposed on the two commu­nities, and installed by the Grand Vicar on the 17th of May. Two priests were appointed to act under him, belonging to the Seminary of S. Nicolas du Chardonnet, an institution notoriously adverse to the Jansenists. The schools of Port Royal, which had acquired such celebrity under the management of Lancelot, Nicole, Le Maitre, and Floriot, were at the same time finally closed.

The next stroke was to compel the unfortunate nuns to sub­scribe the Formulary. It was tendered to them in the first instance in the terms of the mandement originally issued by the Vicars-general; which, indeed, had been composed chiefly with a view to facilitate the acceptance of the test by their party. The sisters of the Paris convent signed without much difficulty; but at Port Royal des Champs the struggle was pain­fully severe. Many of its inmates felt that they could not comply without violating the plain dictates of conscience; they were incompetent to decide for themselves the merits of the questions in dispute; and they were sorely perplexed by a division of opinion which arose at this crisis among the leading members of their own party. They signed at length, with heavy hearts, on the 23rd of June; but to several of them this most needless piece of cruelty was a blow from which they never recovered. One of the victims, as before related, was the admirable sister of Pascal, the Soeur de Ste. Euphemie. The Mere Angelique herself, who had long been sinking under the ravages of a mortal disease, survived the distressing scene only a few weeks. During her last illness she edified all around her by her extraordinary patience, deep humility, and unshaken confidence in God;—qualities the more remarkable, since the forcible removal of Singlin, De Sacy, and Ste. Marthe, her much-valued spiritual advisers, had left her in a grievous state of mental dejection and desolation. The saintly Abbess entered into her rest on the 6th of August, 1661, in the seventieth year of her age.

But the Jesuits, not satisfied with having extorted from Port Royal this act of qualified submission, insisted that nothing would suffice short of accepting the Formulary “pure et simple,” according to the tenor of the last-received mandate from Rome. This was demanded accordingly; and the sisterhood proceeded to debate, in a state of extreme embarrassment and agitation, as to the course to be pursued. Their conclusion was that it was impossible to comply without adding an explanation, signifying in substance that they cordially adopted all decisions of the Holy See in points of faith, but declining to pledge themselves to a like submission as to other matters. This was pronounced unsatisfactory, and the nuns were admonished that they must sign the test in the precise shape in which it was offered to them, without qualification or explanation of any kind.

At this juncture, when Port Royal seemed on the very brink of final ruin, events occurred which once more procured a respite of some duration for the persecuted party. Early in the year 1662 a reconciliation was effected between Cardinal de Betz and the Court, on which occasion that prelate resigned the archbishopric of Paris. His vicars-general, in consequence, vacated their office ipso facto; and their ordonnance for the signature of the Formulary was no longer in force. The learned De Marca was nominated to succeed, but some time necessarily elapsed before he was in a position to enter on his functions; and at the moment when the bulls of institution at length arrived, the new archbishop was suddenly attacked by a mortal sickness, and expired three days afterwards, on the 27th of June. Upon this the king resolved to transfer Hardouin Beaumont de Péréfixe, who had formerly been his preceptor, from the see of Rodez to that of the metropolis. But unforeseen circumstances occasioned fresh delays; an insult offered to the French ambas­sador at Rome, the Due de Crequi, by the Pope’s Corsican guard, became a subject of serious dispute between the two courts, and at one time threatened to produce an open rupture. The Papal Chancery was intractable; and nearly two years elapsed before Péréfixe received the bulls completing his new dignity. Thus the diocese remained still under provisional government.

1lean while several of the French bishops, and those not the least eminent for ability, learning, and piety, expressed with honest freedom their repugnance to the Formulary, and deprecated its execution. The venerable Pavilion, Bishop of Alet, took the lead. In an energetic letter to Vialart, Bishop of Châlons, he maintained that no bishop who entertained a due respect for his office could either sign, or require others to sign, the For­mulary prescribed by the Assembly; inasmuch as that body had no authority to dictate to the Church a new article of faith, particularly an article consisting not of any divinely- revealed truth, but of a mere historical fact. Pavilion wrote in a similar strain to the king and the Assembly. Another of the remonstrants was Henri Arnauld, Bishop of Angers, who in­sisted, in a letter to the king, that for facts which are not directly revealed, the Church has no right to demand religious or “divine” faith; such absolute submission being due to the Word of God alone. Godeau, Bishop of Vence, represented to Louis that the so-called Jansenist heresy was nothing but a phantom or chimera, invented by malicious persons for the purpose of crushing those who differed from them in sentiment; that the pretended Jansenists were sincere and orthodox Catholics; and that the Formulary, far from promoting unity, would only serve to aggravate, prolong, and embitter the conflict which unhappily existed. Statements to the same effect were made by the Bishops of Beauvais and Comminges. Most of the above-named prelates applied likewise to the Pope for special directions how to proceed under the circumstances; but the only reply vouchsafed by his Holiness was to refer them to his brief recently addressed to the Vicars-general of Paris.

The real views of the Ultramontane school as to the extent of the infallibility of the Pope were curiously illustrated by a thesis in divinity maintained at the Jesuit college of Clermont on the 12th of December, 1661. It was thus expressed: “Christ, when about to ascend into heaven, committed first to Peter, and then to his successors, the supreme government of the Church, and invested them with the very same infallibility which He Himself possessed, as often as they should speak ex cathedra. There is, consequently, in the Roman Church an infallible judge of controversies of faith, even independently of a General Council; and that in questions both of doctrine and of fact. Hence, after the decrees of Innocent X. and Alexander VII., it may be believed with divine faith that the book entitled the Augustinus of Jansenius is heretical, and that the Five Propositions were extracted from it, and were condemned in the sense intended by the author.” Antoine Arnauld, in a vehement pamphlet, denounced this extravagant doctrine to the bishops ; but neither the civil nor ecclesiastical authorities thought proper to interfere. A few months later, however, the same sentiment having been repeated in a thesis at the Sorbonne, and again at the college of the Bemardins, the Parliament of Paris took courage, and pronounced against the offenders with all its ancient vigour. The first thesis was summarily suppressed; all parties concerned in it were severely reprimanded, and proposi­tions of that tendency strictly forbidden for the future. The second offence was visited with still heavier penalties; the Syndic of the Faculty being suspended for six months from the exercise of his functions. The Sorbonne drew up on this occasion a statement setting forth, in six articles, the well- known tradition of the Gallican Church with regard to the authority of the Pope. This document having been presented to the king and the Parliament, a royal ordonnance was pub­lished, enjoining that the said articles should be registered by all the Parliaments' and Universities in the kingdom, together with a prohibition to teach or allow any other doctrine on the subject. It must not be concealed, however, that this display of Gallican zeal coincided with certain political circumstances which gave it peculiar point and emphasis. As often as the public relations between the Courts of France and Rome chanced to be. disturbed, his Most Christian Majesty lost no time in re-asserting those immemorial principles which circumscribed the Pontifical jurisdiction in respect both of the temporalty and the spiritualty within his dominions.

Louis had lately been compelled to demand satisfaction for an insult offered to the Duke de Crequi, his ambassador at Rome, by the Pope’s Corsican guard. They had fired upon the carriage of the ambassadress, and killed or wounded several of her attendants. Upon this the king seized Avignon and the county of the Venaissin, and ordered a body of troops to cross the Alps and march upon Rome. An accommodation was arranged, however, in the following year, upon terms deeply mortifying to the Papal See.

The same circumstances may, perhaps, serve to explain a singular negotiation which was undertaken about this period, with a view to bring about a mutual understanding between the antagonist parties in the Church, and thus to terminate the controversy. The Jesuits, fearing for their own interests in case the king should proceed to extremities in his quarrel with Rome, may have thought it prudent to conciliate a party which might at no distant day succeed to a position of great influence and power.

Whatever the motive may have been, it is certain that, towards the close of 1662, F. Annat, with the sanction of the king, opened communications with Gilbert de Choiseul, Bishop of Comminges, an intimate friend of the Arnaulds, and begged him to confer with F. Ferrier, a learned Jesuit, professor of theology at Toulouse, whom he would find anxiously desirous to promote the good work of reconciliation. A preliminary in­terview took place accordingly between the bishop and the Jesuit at Toulouse; and it was agreed, after reference to the Jansenist leaders, that the proposed conferences should forthwith commence, with an understanding that the Formulary should be left entirely out of the question, and that nothing should be demanded of the Jansenists that could offend their conscientious convictions.

The bishop and Ferrier proceeded to Paris; and the king gave permission to Arnauld, Singlin, Taignier, and the Abbd de St. Cyran (M. de Barcos), who were still in concealment, to reappear in the capital, with an assurance of perfect safety pending the conferences. They declined, however, to accept this favour; and two divines of high reputation, La Lanne and Girard, were deputed to act on this occasion on behalf' of their friends.

It was proposed on the part of the Jansenists, that they should draw up five articles bearing on the points of doctrine contained in the five condemned propositions, and that in these articles they should express distinctly their own sentiments with regard to the aforesaid doctrines; if their views should be accepted by the other side, all ground of dispute would disappear at once, and nothing would remain to hinder the re-establishment’ of peace. This was agreed to; and on the 23rd of January, 1663, La Lanne and Girard produced a document in which the controverted questions were treated in close accord­ance with the system usually known as that of the Thomists— which latter, while differing widely from that of the Molinists, had been repeatedly approved by Popes and Councils, and had always been held admissible in the Church. The new Jansenist articles recognized the distinction between “grace actuelle” or “suffisante,” and “grace efficace they repudiated the notion of necessitant grace ; and they declared that grace, if short of effectual grace, may be resisted by the human will. These were large concessions; concessions which, had they been made in good faith ten years before, might have averted untold calamities from the Church of France. The affair looked hopeful, and the good Bishop of Comminges already began to congratulate himself on the success of his charitable enterprise.

F. Ferrier, on examining the Jansenist statement, took ex­ception to certain expressions in the first article; but this difficulty having been removed by the addition of a few words in explanation, he declared himself perfectly satisfied; and as the other articles were unobjectionable, he could not but confess that the Jansenist doctrine as a whole coincided with that of the Church. But instead of proceeding to concert measures for a definite peace, the Jesuit now presented to La Lanne and Girard five articles drawn up by himself, which contained, he said, the sense in which the heretical Propositions had been condemned by the Pope. These he proposed that the deputies should abjure in writing, in testimony of their adhesion to the sentence passed by the Holy See; in that case, he added, no demand would be made upon them with regard to the question of fact; they would not be expected to declare that the heretical doctrine was that of Jansenius, nor to subscribe his con­demnation by name. The deputies complied without difficulty ; and after this both parties appear to have looked forward con­fidently to a final pacification.

But at the next meeting this fair prospect was overclouded by a debate which arose upon the precise point where agreement was utterly hopeless ; namely, the necessity of condemning the Propositions in the sense intended by their author. The “sense of Jansenius” had been for years the real apple of discord between the rival parties; and it proved an insurmountable obstacle to the success of the present negotiation.

The Bishop of Comminges,—finding that no progress was made, and that, in spite of the express stipulation to the contrary at the commencement of the conferences, the question of fact had become the prominent, indeed the sole, issue to be decided,—devised another method of proceeding, by which he conceived that an accommodation might still be effected. He proposed that F. Ferrier should transmit to the Pope the five articles of the Jansenists, together with a formula setting forth their profound respect for his Holiness, and their cordial submission to all the decisions of the Apostolic See. Ferrier, who seems to have been personally sincere in desiring to make peace, consented, but others of his Order interfered to oppose the design, and intrigued without scruple to bring about a rupture of the conferences; and the result was that when the deputies next assembled, Ferrier told them plainly that no arrangement was possible unless they would declare that they condemned the Five Propositions in the sense specified by the Papal constitu­tions; that is, the sense of Jansenius. This sacrifice they did not feel at liberty to make; and in consequence the scheme of reconciliation fell to the ground. The Bishop of Comminges, however, at the desire of the Jansenist commissioners, despatched their profession of faith to Borne, accompanied by an act of unconditional submission to the Pope’s authority and judgment. Alexander thereupon named a special congregation to examine the articles, and they were quickly pronounced to be ambiguous, illogical, and inadmissible. A brief was addressed to the French prelates on the 29th of July, in which the Pope applauded their zeal for the truth, congratulated them on their success in bringing the Jansenists to a better mind, and exhorted them to employ all the means at their command for carrying into complete effect the decisions of the Holy See in the two constitutions against Jansenius.

La Lanne and Girard, when called upon to redeem their promise by conforming themselves to the renewed demand of the Holy Father as signified in his brief, placed in the hands of the Bishop of Comminges a second declaration, signifying that they rejoiced in the implied approbation of their doctrine conveyed by the terms of the Papal brief, that they were ready to sign a condemnation of the Five Propositions in any words which his Holiness might prescribe, but that, as their act of submission did not bind them to anything repugnant to truth and conscience, they could not, without distinction and qualification, abjure the “sense of Jansenius.” The Bishop presented this memorial to the king on the 24th of September, and then withdrew, deeply grieved and mortified, to his remote diocese in Languedoc.

Such was the abortive issue of these conferences, which created a considerable sensation at the time. The inflexible Antoine Arnauld, who profoundly distrusted the sincerity of any overtures proceeding from the Jesuits, retired from the negotiation soon after its commencement; which circumstance was in itself almost inevitably fatal to the success of the attempt. Arnauld had persisted for so many years in an attitude of stubborn antagonism, that the very notion of submission, though on the easiest terms, was to him insupportable. Perhaps it is not too much to say that he preferred strife to peace, at all events if the latter were to be purchased by any semblance of surrender to his adversaries. In vain the Bishop of Comminges assured him that he was not asked to profess an internal belief of anything from which his conscience revolted, but only to defer to superior authority as a matter of external ecclesiastical discipline. He replied that such distinctions were not to be reconciled with his views of duty, and remained impracticable.

Accounts of the Conferences were forthwith published by both parties, abounding with mutual charges of misrepresentation, deception, and calumny. Appeal was thereupon made to the Bishop of Comminges, who, having acted as mediator throughout, must have been better qualified than anyone else to determine on which side the truth lay; but that prelate preserved a resolute silence, and thereby gave reason to presume that his testimony, had he chosen to speak out, would have been unfavourable to those with whose general sentiments and policy he was known to sympathize.

The second declaration of the Jansenist commissioners was laid before the royal “council of conscience,” and disallowed as insufficient and evasive; whereupon the king summoned an assembly of prelates to deliberate on the best means of carrying into execution the late brief from Rome. Fifteen archbishops and bishops met at Paris on the 2nd of October, 1663, and determined (though they had obviously no right to dictate to their colleagues) that no better course could be taken than to insist on the immediate and universal signature of the Formulary of the clergy. They besought the king to exert his authority for the attainment of this end. Louis issued his edict accordingly, and proceeded in person to the Parliament on the 15th of April, 1664, to enforce its registration in due form. By this decree his Majesty enjoined that the Formulary should be signed by all ecclesiastics secular and regular, without any privilege of appeal; that the benefices of those who should not have signed it within the space of one month from the publication of the edict should be ipso facto void ; and that no one should henceforth be admitted to any ecclesiastical preferment, nor to any degrees or offices in the Universities, nor to make profession in any monastery, without having first subscribed the test. He concluded with a general prohibition of all books and writings already or hereafter to be published contrary to the bulls of Innocent X and Alexander VII, the orders of the Assembly of Clergy, and the decrees of the Faculty of Theology of Paris.

The new Archbishop of Paris, having at length (April 20th, 1664) obtained his bulls and entered on his functions, published a mandement enjoining the immediate signature of the Formulary, in pursuance of the royal edict. Péréfixe, though an obsequious courtier, was a man of pacific counsels, and ’ anxious to discover some expedient by which the king’s commands might be obeyed without doing violence to the conscientious scruples of the Jansenists. With this view, he drew a distinction in his mandement between the several kinds and degrees of belief. No one, he observed, except through malice or ignorance, could maintain that the Church had ever demanded for the fact of Jansenius a “divine” faith, such as is claimed for the supernatural truths of revelation. All that was asked was a “human” or “ecclesiastical” faith, implying cordial submission of judgment to the supreme spiritual authority. This, from such a quarter, was a most important declaration, conceding substantially the point for which the Jan­senists had all along contended, namely, that the decisions of the Pope on matters of fact stood on different ground from his definitions de fide; and condemning, moreover, those who held, as the Jesuits notoriously did, that the self-same quality and degree of faith is due to all decisions of the Apostolic See, whether their subject-matter be fact or doctrine. It is strange that, with the latitude of construction thus authorized by their diocesan, the friends of Port Royal should have persisted in opposing the required subscription to the Formulary; for they had often professed themselves willing to sign as an act of canonical obedience or discipline; and the man dement of the archbishop, though varying somewhat in terms, amounted in reality to no more than this. They showed no disposition, how­ever, to accept the olive-branch; on the contrary, they began to write in a strain of caustic sarcasm against the newly-invented theory of “human faith;” and Nicole, in particular, ridiculed it without mercy in a series of letters entitled ‘Les Imaginaires,’ which appeared about this time, and formed a kind of sequel to the ‘Provinciales’ of Pascal.

The archbishop proceeded in person, on the 9th of June, to Port Royal, attended by his vicar-general, and made an official visitation of the monastery. He interrogated the nuns, replied to their objections with much patience, and exerted all his powers of argument and persuasion to reduce them to compliance. But his endeavours were fruitless; he withdrew, after intimating that three weeks would be allowed them for further consideration, during which he hoped they would profit by the instructions of two ecclesiastics specially appointed for this purpose—Chamillard, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and Father Esprit of the Oratory. These divines proposed to the sisterhood various forms of submission, expressed in general terms, either of which would have satisfied the archbishop; but insuperable objections were raised to each. At last the com­munity adopted a declaration stating that they accepted with sincere belief the doctrinal decision; and that with regard to the fact, as they felt themselves incompetent to form any judgment, they maintained the “respectful silence” which best became their condition. They could not, in conscience, testify by a public act that certain heresies were contained in a book which they had never seen: a book, too, written in Latin, of which language they knew nothing.

On the 21st of August the archbishop made his second visit to the convent of Port Royal at Paris. Having assembled the community, he put the question to them individually, whether they were willing to sign the Formulary according to his mandement; and finding them still resolute in their refusal, he upbraided them sharply for their obstinacy,—declared that, “though they might be pure as angels, they were proud as devils,”—and ended by interdicting them from the use of the Sacraments. Severe measures followed. In the course of a few days the prelate again made his appearance at the monastery, attended by the lieutenant-civil and other officers, with a formidable array of exempts and archers. He went straight to the chapterhouse, and there, reading from a list the names of twelve of the principal nuns, the abbess among the number, he ordered them to leave the convent forthwith, and enter the carriages which were waiting for them at the gate. Solemnly protesting against this act of violence, they obeyed; and were removed to other religious houses according to arrange­ments made previously. They were replaced by sisters of the order of the Visitation, and the Mere Louise Eugenie de Fontaine was appointed abbess. The ejected nuns made their appeal to the Parliament against the proceedings of their diocesan, but the Court interfered, and the affair was evoked to the cognizance of the Council of State, where of course it was quietly suppressed.

The establishment at Port Royal des Champs was visited some months later with the same penalties that had been inflicted on the house at Paris. Péréfixe, as a last resource, commissioned the famous Bossuet, at that time archdeacon and canon of Metz, to confer with the contumacious nuns, in the hope that his eloquence might win them over to a more reasonable mind. The accomplished abbe spared no pains to convince them that, according to the terms of the archbishop’s mande­ment, they were not required to embrace the fact of Jansenius by a conscious act of the understanding, but only to acquiesce in the Pope’s decision out of deference to his authority.* But he laboured in vain; the sisters had become ambitious of the honours of martyrdom; rather than yield an inch of ground to their oppressors, they preferred incurring the extreme sentence of excommunication, which was launched against them accordingly, and remained, in force for several years, until the “peace of Clement IX.”

The signature of the Formulary, meanwhile, made comparatively little progress throughout France. The fearless Pavilion, who deemed the whole proceeding uncanonical and illegal, and could not reconcile his conscience to half-measures, solemnly prohibited its execution in his diocese, and even excommunicated some of his clergy who, contrary to his orders, had taken the test before the civil magistrates. For this he was denounced to the Parliament, in a violent speech, by Omer Talon, the advocate-general; and an arret of that body suppressed a somewhat intemperate letter which he had written to the king. It was stoutly maintained, by the opponents of the Formulary, that the Pope himself disapproved the step taken by the clergy in imposing it; that he had avoided all mention of it in his briefs, and that his opinion of the measure was also manifest from his own conduct, since he had not thought it necessary to exact any such test of orthodoxy at Rome. Louis XIV, finding himself embarrassed by these allegations, requested the Pope to prescribe a new form of subscription, and to insist upon its execution by the bishops and clergy of France. Nothing could be more acceptable to the Court of Rome than such an application; for nothing could be better calculated to support the pretensions of the See to universal dominion and infallible authority. A bull was despatched to France without delay, dated February 15, 1665, embodying a Formulary almost » identical in terms with that of the bishops, and enjoining that it should be signed universally within three months after its publication; in default of which the recusants would be proceeded against with the utmost rigour prescribed by the canons. The bull was confirmed by a royal declaration, and registered in Parliament on the 29th of April.

The bishops now felt bound to proceed in earnest; and in every diocese measures were taken for enforcing subscription. But the mandements issued for this purpose varied considerably; some prelates demanded compliance “purement et simplement,” without any distinction between the droit and the fait; others expressly sanctioned such distinction, requiring a submission by “divine faith” for the doctrine, and of external respect, as a matter of discipline, for the fact. The Archbishop of Paris, whose theory of “human faith” had by this time sunk into general discredit, abandoned that term on the present occasion, and adopted the ambiguous phrase of “ sincere acquiescence which might be construed by Ultramontanes as equivalent to “ divine faith,” while Jansenists might take advantage of it to subscribe the test without any real belief at all.

The courageous Bishop of Alet, disdaining to equivocate under such circumstances, published a mandement on the 1st of June, in which his views as to the limits of Church authority were set forth with transparent clearness. Truths revealed by God, of which the Church is the ordained guardian, must be accepted on her testimony with an entire subjection of the reason and of all the faculties of the mind; but with regard to other truths, not so revealed, God has not provided any infallible arbiter; so that when the Church declares that certain propositions are contained in a given book, or that such and such is the meaning of a particular author, she acts only by human knowledge, and may be mistaken. For decisions of this kind the Church cannot require positive internal belief; nevertheless the faithful are not permitted to question or impugn her judgments, which in all cases must be treated with submission, for the preservation of due order and discipline. The high character and saintly life of Pavilion added infinite weight to his pastoral instructions. His sentiments were shared by other prelates, particularly by Henri Arnauld, Bishop of Angers, Nicolas Choart de Buzanval, Bishop of Beauvais, and François de Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers; these issued mandements of precisely similar import, as did also the Bishops of Noy on and Laon; but the two latter, on receiving notice of the displeasure of the Court, retracted, and adopted a tone of exact accordance with the Papal bull. An arret of the Council of State, on the 20th of July, cancelled the mandements of the four refractory bishops, and forbade the clergy to obey them.

It was determined to take judicial proceedings against the prelates who had thus boldly constituted themselves the apostles of Jansenism; but this was an affair of considerable delicacy and difficulty. According to Roman jurisprudence, the Pope was the sole judge of bishops; on the other hand, it was one of the most cherished of the Gallican liberties, that bishops in France could only be tried, in the first instance, before their metropolitan and his comprovincials.t Application having been made to the Pope on the subject by the French ambassador at Rome, his Holiness proposed to name the Archbishop of Paris and two other prelates as delegates for hearing the cause; but the king decidedly objected to this method of adjudication, as an invasion of the privileges which he was bound to defend. After a tedious negotiation, it was at length arranged that the Pope should nominate a commission of nine prelates to proceed to the trial of their colleagues; that seven should be competent to act; that the president should have power to appoint sub­stitutes in the room of those who might decline to act; and that the accused should not be at liberty either to challenge the judges or to appeal from their decision.

The mandements of the four bishops were at the same time denounced by a decree of the Congregation of the Index; upon which the bishops of Languedoc wrote to the .king in terms of energetic remonstance against the encroachments of the Court of Rome on the rights of the episcopate, and Louis replied by assuring them that he would always uphold their lawful jurisdiction and the liberties of the Gallican Church.

The prosecution of the bishops was suspended by the 'death of Alexander VIL, which occurred on the 20th of May, 1667. Cardinal Giulio Rospigliosi, who succeeded him under the name of Clement IX, was known to be of moderate opinions and disposed to a pacification; and measures were immediately concerted in France for taking advantage of this favourable change of circumstances. The Jansenists had lately made two proselytes of exalted rank, the Princess of Conti and the Duchess of Longueville: the former a niece of Cardinal Mazarin, married to a prince of the blood royal; the latter, once the restless intrigante of the Fronde, but now a remorseful penitent, under the spiritual guidance of Singlin. Through the intervention of these noble ladies their adopted party gained the protection of the ministers Le Tellier and De Lionne, who at that time were high in the confidence of Louis XIV. They represented the case strongly to the king, dwelling especially on the imminent risk of a schism in the Church if matters should be pressed to extremity against the four bishops. Louis allowed it to be understood that he should be glad if means could be devised for effecting an accommodation; upon which the Archbishop of Sens (De Gondrin), and Felix Vialart, Bishop of Châlons, offered their services as mediators for this purpose.

Their first step was to draw up a respectful letter to the Pope in defence of their accused brethren, which was subscribed, through their exertions, by nineteen prelates. This document assured his Holiness that the four bishops were unjustly charged with want of deference to the Holy See, since their doctrine as to the judgment of the Church on unrevealed facts was none other than that of Cardinals Baronius, Bellarmine, and Palavicini,—writers held in the highest estimation at Rome. If this was an error, it was not peculiar to the prelates in question, but was held by their colleagues, and, indeed, by the whole Church. Many French bishops had expressed the very same sentiments to their clergy,—sentiments which remained on record in their diocesan registries, although not published. The letter concluded with an eloquent appeal to Clement to signalise his accession to the Pontificate by healing the wounds of the distracted Church, an achievement which would cover his name with immortal glory.

The same prelates proceeded to address a letter to the king, setting forth that the doctrine of the Four Bishops was that which the Church had uniformly held in all ages, and that they could not be prosecuted in the manner proposed without a direct infraction of the Gallican liberties, and without degrading the bishops into mere vassals of the Pope. This production was denounced by the king to the Parliament (doubtless at the instigation of the Jesuit Annat), upon which an arret appeared for its suppression, and threatening penal measures against those who, by “ unlawful cabals and assemblies,” caused such demonstrations. A similar course was taken with a manifesto from the four bishops themselves addressed to the whole French episcopate, in which they complained bitterly of the oppressive treatment they had met with, and entreated their brethren to unite in a firm resistance to this attack upon the privileges of their Order. The paper is of considerable length; it is replete with learning and forcible argument, and may be said to exhaust the subject of which it treats. The bishops appeal to the records of antiquity, to the canons of Antioch, Sardica, and the celebrated Councils of Africa in the time of Popes Zosimus, Coelestine, and Boniface, in proof of the great principle that bishops are to be judged by the metropolitan and his suffragans assembled in provincial Synod. They shew that this was confirmed by the Gallican Code received by Charlemagne from Pope Adrian I; and, further, that it is implied even by the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. They cite, likewise, the Articles published by the Sorbonne in 1663, one of which condemns any infraction of the ecclesiastical laws of the realm, and, in particular, any attempt to depose bishops contrary to the regulations laid down in the canons. “We acknowledge,” they say, “the pre-eminence of the Holy See, and the supreme dignity of the successor of Peter; but we also know that we are all successors of the Apostles; that the Pope is our superior by Divine right, but that he is not the only bishop. We know that we ourselves, equally with him, have received our authority from Jesus Christ himself; and that the Holy Ghost has appointed each one of us to govern in the quality of His vicars (as all antiquity bears witness) that portion of the Church which is confided to our care.” This circular was suppressed by the Council of State on the 4th of July, 1668; and the bishops were commanded to address themselves to the king upon all matters concerning the interests of the clergy, without putting forth public statements upon such subjects except with his previous permission.

Notwithstanding these discouraging circumstances, the negotiation for restoring peace proceeded; but it was conducted with extreme caution, and was kept a profound secret from Father Annat and the Ultramontanes, who would have strained every nerve, as on the former occasion, to ruin the scheme. For the same reason it was carefully concealed from the Archbishop of Paris; for, as a member of the Council of Conscience, he could hardly have avoided mentioning it to his Jesuit col­leagues. The Nuncio Bargellini, Archbishop of Thebes, had lately arrived in France, furnished with ample powers on the part of the Pope; and in his presence anxious consultations were now held as to the best mode of arranging the terms of reconciliation. Besides De Gondrin and Vialart, the Bishop of Laon, afterwards so well known as Cardinal d’Estrées, rendered important service, at this critical moment, to the cause of peace.

It was no easy task to mediate between two parties, neither of whom was willing to make the very slightest concession or sacrifice. The Pope, it was evident, could not recede from his demand of an absolute and unreserved acceptance of the Formu­lary; the bishops, on the other hand, positively declined to subscribe it without making a clear distinction between the droit and the fait. Various plans were discussed and aban­doned. At last it was proposed that the bishops, without being required to retract their mandements, should sign the Formulary afresh, as if they had taken no steps in the matter before, and should cause it to be signed by their clergy; that any explanatory remarks which they might wish to make should be made by a procés-verbal at their diocesan Synods, such written statements not to be published, but to be deposited in the registry of each diocese; and that they should afterwards join in a letter to the Pope, informing him of this new act of dutiful submission to his authority. This expedient was approved by the Nuncio, accepted, on his recommendation, by the Pope, and ultimately adopted.

The composition of the proposed letter to the Pope was entrusted to Arnauld and Nicole, who acquitted themselves with all their usual ability. The draft was submitted to the Ministers, and by them to the king; the Nuncio made some slight alterations, and it was then signed by himself and the Archbishop of Sens; upon which this memorable transaction was deemed complete. It remained, however, to obtain the personal adhesion of the four prelates; and here, much to the alarm of the negotiators, the Bishop of Alet proved for some time intractable. Courier after courier was despatched to urge him to compliance, but in vain. At last he yielded to the importunate entreaties of the Bishop of Comminges, Antoine Arnauld, and other friends, and appended his signature on the 10th of September, 1668. The other prelates assented without difficulty.

The bishops represented, in this famous document, that, “having learned that with regard to the manner of executing the constitution of Pope Alexander and subscribing the Formulary, many French bishops had followed a line of conduct differing from their own and more agreeable to his Holiness, they had deemed it right to imitate them in this particular, having nothing more nearly at heart than to contribute to the peace and union of the Church; that they had, therefore, assembled their diocesan Synods, and prescribed a fresh subscription, in which they themselves had joined; that they had given the same instructions to their clergy that had been given by the bishops their colleagues; that they had enforced the same deference to the constitutions of the Holy See that had been required in other dioceses; and that, as they had always been united to their episcopal brethren by an identity of doc­trinal sentiment, so they were now in accordance with them in point of discipline and mode of proceeding.” They concluded with an elaborate protestation of unqualified submission to the chair of St. Peter and of respect for the Holy Father personally.

In the procés-verbal made by the Bishop of Alet at his diocesan Synod, held on the 15th of September, he explained to the clergy that their subscription of the Formulary implied “a sincere, entire, and unreserved condemnation of all the false doctrine which the Popes and the Church had condemned in the Five Propositions, so as to profess no other doctrine on that head than that of the Catholic and Roman Church.” Moreover, that the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas on grace “efficacious by itself” is not to be held comprised in the false doctrine so condemned, according to the repeated declarations of the Popes themselves; and lastly, that with regard to the fact enunciated in the Formulary, their subscription sig­nified only submission of respect and discipline, which consisted in not opposing the Pontifical decision, and preserving silence; since the Church, being not infallible as to facts of this description, did not pretend, by her own sole authority, to compel her children to believe them. The other bishops expressed themselves in almost the same terms.

Clement IX, by a brief addressed to the king on the 8th of October, declared himself satisfied with the conduct of the four prelates, on the understanding that they had submitted “by a sincere acceptance of the Formulary.” Thereupon an arret of the Council of State (October 23, 1668), after reciting such submission, announced that, since the Pope was satisfied, the king was satisfied also; ordered that the Papal constitu­tions should continue to be inviolably observed throughout the kingdom; and that all proceedings in contravention of them should be considered null and void. The king, moreover, forbade all persons henceforth to attack or provoke one another by using the opprobrious terms of “heretic,” “Jansenist,” “semi-Pelagian,” or other party appellations; nor was anything to be published concerning the contested questions, or injurious to the reputation of those who had taken part in them, under pain of exemplary punishment.

These events were hailed with the utmost satisfaction and joy by all classes except those whose interest lay in preventing the restoration of peace.t Antoine Arnauld emerged forthwith from his retirement, was presented to the Nuncio, and after­wards, by his nephew Pomponne, to the king at St. Germain, where he met with a gracious reception. De Sacy, who had been immured for upwards of two years in the Bastille, was set at liberty, introduced at Court, and became, together with Arnauld, an object of general and enthusiastic admiration. The famous preacher Desmares reappeared in the pulpit of St. Roch. The interdict was removed from Port Royal, upon a petition from the sisters to the Archbishop, which contained an act of submission in terms dictated by the prelate himself. The Solitaires, having no further cause for concealment, repaired to their former haunts in the valley of Chevreuse; and Madame de Longueville, who was now saluted by the Jansenists as the “mother of the Church,” established herself in a mansion which she had built close to the monastery. The King nominated as abbess of Port Royal a nun called Dorothée Perdreau, one of the few who had signed the Formulary when it was resisted by the rest of the community in 1664.

Whether Clement IX really believed that the Four Bishops had accepted the Formulary without restriction or distinction, is a question which has been warmly debated. It appears that he was not informed beforehand of the arrangement by which they were to make a written explanation of their views in the diocesan Synods; indeed, if this condition had not been concealed from him, it is difficult to understand how the negotiation could have proved successful. On the other hand, the bishops stated in their letter that they had adopted the same line of action with their nineteen brethren who had addressed the Pope in their favour; and it was perfectly well known that these prelates recognised a distinction between the fait and the droit, though no mention of that circumstance had been made in their public mandements. There can be no doubt that Clement regarded the whole affair more or less in the light of a compromise; and that, accordingly, he thought it right to accept the act of submission in the sense in which he had demanded it, without inquiring into further details. No sooner, however, was the event made public, than it began to be rumoured that the bishops had acted insincerely; that they had pretended to give satisfaction to the Nuncio and the Pope by unqualified submission, whereas they had clandestinely renewed that very distinction between the droit and the fait which had been so often and so positively condemned. It was not long before these complaints reached the ears of the Pope; and he at once instructed the Nuncio to investigate the matter thoroughly, and to exact from the bishops a certificate in due form that they had subscribed the Formulary, and caused it to be signed, in all sincerity, in conformity with the constitutions of his predecessors. To this they consented readily, nor was there anything to prevent their doing so. The very means by which the arrangement had been arrived at was the substitution of the phrase “a sincere acceptance” for that of “an acceptance pure and simple” Doubtless they had signed in sincerity, for the explanation appended to their act of subscription had been made for the sole purpose of enabling them to sign with a safe conscience; but it is no less certain that they retracted nothing whatever of their previously expressed opinions; and that, whether with or without the Pope’s connivance, they availed themselves of a saving clause which effectually sheltered their long-cherished conviction with regard to the “ fact of Jansenins.”

By way of a further guarantee to his Holiness, the Bishop of Châlons executed a formal document, declaring that the four bishops and their clergy had acted with perfect good faith; had condemned, without exception or reserve, all the errors which the Church had censured in the five Propositions; and with regard to the fact, had rendered to the Holy See all due deference and submission, according to the doctrine on that point taught by the greatest theologians of all ages. This was likewise attested by the signature of Antoine Arnauld, as representative of the Port Royalist divines.

Having received this authentic declaration, Clement con­ceived that no further ground existed for questioning the uprightness of the bishops in the transaction; he, therefore, addressed a brief to them, dated January 19th, 1669, which is regarded as the official ratification of the “Peace of Clement IX.” His Holiness alluded to certain current reports connected with their act of submission, which had made it necessary to proceed with caution in the affair; and observed that he could never have permitted any sort of restriction or exception in the signature, being strongly attached to the constitutions of his predecessors. But, after the renewed testimonies which had reached him of their perfect sincerity and obedience, he could no longer withhold the assurance of his paternal satisfaction; he therefore transmitted to them, with much affection, the apostolical benediction.

In order to commemorate the happy termination of this lengthened conflict, a medal was struck at the mint, bearing on one side the head of Louis XIV., and on the other a book lying open on an altar, across which were the keys of St. Peter and the royal sceptre saltierwise; above was the holy Dove surrounded by rays, with the legend “Gratia et pax a Deo”; at the foot of the altar ran the motto, “Ob restitutam Ecclesiae concordiam.”

It is hardly to be wondered at, but not the less to be regretted, that the Jansenists betrayed, in their hour of triumph, feelings of boastful exultation which might have been far more wisely suppressed. With singular bad taste they proclaimed in the most public manner that the conduct of Clement IX was inconsistent with, and condemnatory of, that of his predecessors; that he had sanctioned a mode of subscription which they had denounced as fraudulent and hypocritical; and that the same persons who for years past had been branded as heretics for refusing to believe that the five Propositions were taught by Jansenius, were now acknowledged by the Pope, the bishops, and the King of France to be orthodox Catholics, although they maintained precisely the same sentiments as before, and had never made any statements or admissions which they had not been perfectly ready to make at any period of the controversy. Such was the main purport of a ‘History of the Pacification of the Church,’ put forth under the auspices of the party by an ecclesiastic named Varet, vicar-general to the Archbishop of Sens; of another work, with the same title, by Father Quesnel, of the Oratory; and of the ‘Phantôme du Jansenisme,’ a treatise from the pen of Arnauld himself.

Clement IX survived scarcely a year the celebrated act of amnesty which bears his name. He died December 9th, 1669, and was succeeded, after a few months, by Cardinal Altieri, who took the title of Clement X. The following year witnessed a change in the government of the diocese of Paris: Archbishop Péréfixe expired on the 31st of December, 1670, and was replaced by François de Harlai, Archbishop of Rouen, a man of considerable learning and administrative talent, but of harsh temperament and indifferent morals.